THE SENATE
PATHWAY APPROVAL REPORT
(Franchised Provision)
A confirmed report of the event held on 11 November 2008 to
consider the re-approval of the following pathway:
Graduate Certificate Specialist Palliative Care
Faculty of Health and Social Care
Delivery of Pathway at St Helena Hospice
Quality Assurance Division
SECTION A – OUTCOME SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The purpose of the event was to consider the re-approval and franchise to St Helena
Hospice of the Graduate Certificate in Specialist Palliative Care.
1.2
The pathway will be located in the Continuing Care Programme in the Department of
Primary & Intermediate Care
1.3
Modification to the pathway includes the replacement of one module with another. As this
alteration was in excess of the credit value allowed under the curriculum revisions process
an approval event was convened in line with the Senate Code of Practice on the Approval,
Annual Monitoring and Periodic Review of Taught Pathways.
2.
CONCLUSIONS
2.1
The Panel recommends to the Senate the re-approval and franchise of the following
pathway:

Graduate Certificate Specialist Palliative Care
Delivery mode:
Part Time
Student cohort:
minimum – 10; maximum – 45
One intake per annum
Approval, once confirmed, will be for an indefinite period, subject to Anglia Ruskin’s
continuing quality assurance procedures.
2.2
No new modules were approved at this event
2.3
Conditions
Approval is subject to the following condition which was set by the Panel. A copy of the
response must be lodged with the Executive Officer by the date detailed below:
2.3.1
Details of Condition
Deadline
Response to
be considered
by
In relation to the module: Symptom
Management in Palliative Care, the Proposal
Team shall remove all references to the
assessment of competencies via a mentor /
Practice Supervisor and the requirement to have
the Core Competency form signed off by anyone
external to St Helena Hospice.
1 December
2008
Chair
1 December
2008
Chair /
Technical
Officer
(paragraph 5.6)
2.3.2
The Team shall submit a revised Pathway
Specification form updated in line with the
Technical Report.
(paragraph 9.1)
Quality Assurance Division
2
Confirmed
2.4
Recommendations
The following recommendation for quality enhancement was made by the Panel. A copy of
the response to the recommendation listed below must be lodged with the Executive
Officer. The Faculty Board for the Faculty of Health and Social Care will consider the
responses at its meeting of 26th February 2008:
2.4.1
Details of Recommendation
Deadline
The Team at St Helena Hospice is recommended to consider
formalising the arrangements for formative assessment and
feedback, with particular reference to the module: Symptom
Management in Palliative Care
2
February
2009
(paragraph 5.3)
2.5
Issues Referred to the Senate (or appropriate standing committee)
The Panel did not identify any institution-wide issues requiring the attention of the Senate
or an appropriate standing committee of the Senate:
2.6
Commendations
The Panel was impressed with the choice of modules for this short course and particularly
commended the innovative assessment method used for the module: Facing Death:
Patients, Families and Professionals.
Quality Assurance Division
3
Confirmed
SECTION B – DETAIL OF DISCUSSION AND PANEL CONCLUSIONS
3
RATIONALE
3.1
The Graduate Certificate in Specialist Palliative Care is a 60 credit, Level 3 pathway
designed to enable the practitioner to develop professional knowledge and skills to deliver
high quality, holistic palliative care to patients, and their families/loved ones, whose disease
no longer responds to curative treatment. The pathway is delivered part-time to students
who are usually working full time within their discipline.
3.2
St Helena Hospice has been delivering education in palliative care since 1995 within its
purpose built education centre that includes a specialist library. This course has been
delivered at St Helena Hospice since 1996 when it was approved by Anglia Ruskin and the
English National Board (predecessor of the Nursing & Midwifery Council) as a short course
in Palliative Care Nursing. With the demise of the ENB in 2002 it became a Diploma of
Credit and subsequently through the 15/30 curriculum changes in 2005/06, a Graduate
Certificate consisting of two compulsory, Level 3, 30 credit modules. The pathway is not
delivered at core Anglia.
3.3
The majority of students take the individual modules as part of the BSc (Hons) Palliative
Care pathway but the Graduate Certificate remains an important adjunct for those students
who wish to have a qualification in palliative care but do not wish to progress to graduate
status or those who already have a first degree.
3.4
The proposed developments to the pathway include the replacement of one module by
another. Both modules are already approved.
3.5
The Graduate Certificate was previously delivered at St Helena Hospice in accordance with
Anglia Ruskin’s regulations, quality assurance policies and procedures for an out-centre
delivery. The relationship between the two institutions has developed to the stage where
St Helena Hospice is now considered a full collaborative partner of Anglia Ruskin
University, delivering a franchised Anglia Ruskin curriculum. Over the previous day and a
half the University conducted an Institutional Review process in order to formalise the
relationship and this event was able to inform the management of the franchise and reapproval of this pathway.
4
CURRICULUM DESIGN, CONTENT AND DELIVERY
4.1
The curriculum is described as patient focused, practice led, student focused and
responsive to changing needs of both the learners and those with palliative needs. This
description was supported by the Panel who commended the team for their choice of
modules that are relevant and reflect current issues within palliative care practice and will
encourage students to review current knowledge, enhance their own knowledge and their
ability to apply it in practice. In addition, the development of the curriculum clearly had
been underpinned by relevant research and the ongoing professional staff development of
the team members.
4.2
The Panel was satisfied that the learning outcomes were set at the appropriate level and
matched the Anglia Ruskin level descriptors. The QAA framework for HE qualifications
was addressed within the delivery through the use of critical reflection, evaluation and
synthesis of argument as a basis for analysis and enquiry.
4.3
The pathway specification form acknowledges the Benchmark Statement for Nursing as
being a reference point in the development of the curriculum.
In addition the
documentation notes that the curriculum has been further informed by a number of sources
including: the World Health Organisation, the DH End of Life Care Strategy and the Nursing
Quality Assurance Division
4
Confirmed
and Midwifery Council Code of Conduct. The Panel was satisfied that key academic areas
had been covered appropriately.
5
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
5.1
The module: Symptom Management in Palliative Care is assessed by a competency
portfolio using an assessment framework. It was not immediately clear to the Panel how
the module’s six learning outcomes aligned with each of the 30 competencies and how it
would be possible to retain the assessment within defined academic boundaries. The
Team acknowledged that the link was inherent rather than explicit as a number of the
competencies would need to be addressed through one individual learning outcome. The
Panel was advised that concerns about this particular issue had already been raised in the
past by lecturers at St Helena. In order to be satisfied of the validity of a competency
based assessment qualitative research had been undertaken by the Director of Education
to explore it in relation to a student’s understanding and perception of what is required to
successfully achieve the learning outcomes of the module. Findings had shown that the
assessment was appropriate and provided a way of bridging learning and practice through
the compilation of evidence of competence within a portfolio. The team acknowledged that
students required additional support for this assessment and dedicated as much tutorial
support as possible.
5.2
The Panel had been able to view examples of completed and marked portfolios through the
process of the Institutional Review and noted that whilst there was a great deal of printed
information provided there appeared to be little evidence in some of the portfolios of the
achievement of competencies. The Team acknowledged that some students will provide
large portfolios containing a great deal of unnecessary information despite the tutorial
support provided that emphasised the need for students to support their evidence through
the written work. High quality portfolios will provide clear well written evidence and external
examiner reports had acknowledged the good work submitted by a number of students for
this module.
5.3
The Panel queried if there were any formal arrangements made for a formative assessment
to take place during the delivery of the module. The Team confirmed that this took place
informally through tutorials and through viewing of the students’ draft work. However, the
Panel considered that the students would benefit from a more formally organised process
that required the student to submit after the completion of, say, two or three competencies
that were then marked and the student provided with feedback. (Recommendation 2.4.1)
5.4
Although the majority of students who access this pathway will be nurses it is also available
to other professionals within health and social care. As some of the competencies relate to
the administration of drugs and medication the Panel wished to be assured that these
specific competencies could be achieved by a non nurse. The team confirmed that the
competencies require evidence of the understanding of the process and do not require the
student to administer a drug; it can therefore be achieved by professionals other than
registered nurses.
5.5
The documentation contained the template for the Portfolio. This is in the form of a grid
listing all the competencies with a column alongside that requires the signature of a
practice supervisor once the competency has been achieved. The Panel discussed with
the Team the purpose and role of the mentor/practice supervisor in relation to the support
provided for the students and the assessment of this module. The module is identified as a
standard type; i.e. it is a theory only module and practice skills are not assessed and do not
contribute towards the mark of the module. In addition, the Team confirmed that the
practice supervisors were not acting as official qualified mentors. It was therefore unclear
what the practice supervisor was ‘signing off’ and their authority to do so.
Quality Assurance Division
5
Confirmed
5.6
The Panel advised the Team that any arrangements made for the assessment of practice
must be in line with current expectations. It was acceptable to allow a person within the
same practice environment to support a student through discussion and reflection but this
should not extend to assessing the student or contributing in any way towards the marking
process. The Team was required to amend the competency framework by removing all
opportunities for the practice supervisor to formally contribute to or sign off the portfolio.
(Condition 2.3.1)
5.7
The assessment of the module: Facing Death: Patients, Families and Professionals is
through an essay on the analysis of a taped interview with a patient, including a short
exploration of one issue that emerges from the analysis. Students will be exploring and
developing their own communication skills through this module. The Panel commended
the team for this innovative form of assessment but wished to be assured that there was a
clearly laid down process for ensuring anonymity for the patient and security of the tapes.
The Team confirmed the process has clear criteria that require the completion in all cases
of a consent form signed by the patient prior to the start of any interview. A patient
information leaflet has also been developed that sets out the options of either having the
tape destroyed after the assessment process has been completed or for the patient to
retain the tape of their own interview.
6
STAFFING, LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT
6.1
The majority of students present with the professional qualification of Registered General
Nurse although the pathway is open to other registered professionals. Typically in the
intervening years between qualifying and returning to study students have remained up to
date through continuous professional development relevant to their current field of practice,
some of which will have been awarded academic credit. However some students do
require additional study skills particularly if they have been out of higher education for a
number of years and this is provided by the teaching team in conjunction with the library.
The Team was reminded that additional study skills for weaker students can be provided at
core Anglia and advised them to ensure students were fully aware of the options open and
support available to them.
6.2
The Teaching and Learning resources at the Education Centre in Colchester were seen by
the Panel and noted as being of a very high quality providing a suitably supportive
atmosphere to enable the students to learn within. Due to the sensitive nature of this
discipline the Panel was made aware of the additional tutorial support and counselling that
was provided by staff on a needs basis.
6.3
The Panel particularly commended St Helena on the extensive and current texts and
journals available in the library and the availability of space for quiet study. Computer
facilities are also available but limited; however, this was not raised as a cause for concern
through student evaluation as they generally met the needs of these students who would
only be accessing them one day a week.
7
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
7.1
Due to the previous arrangements between the Faculty of Health & Social Care and St
Helena Hospice it was clear that staff at St Helena were fully conversant with Anglia
Ruskin’s requirements for quality assurance and enhancement. Students are able to
evaluate all delivery through formal and informal processes and these will feed into the
Faculty and the University processes. Student representatives are appointed for each
cohort and opportunities to access Programme Subcommittees provided. However,
through the discussions held as part of the Institutional Review it was noted that
communications had sometimes been problematic in the past although the Panel was now
Quality Assurance Division
6
Confirmed
satisfied that appropriate arrangements were now in place to ensure appropriate liaison
takes place between the FHSC Department and St Helena Hospice and the students.
8
MANANGEMENT OF THE FRANCHISE PARTNERSHIP
8.1
As noted under paragraph 7.1 and within the Institutional Review there have been
difficulties in the communications between the two institutions in recent years due to the
restructuring and staff changes that have taken place. The Panel was now satisfied from
the responses received that both the Faculty and St Helena had identified those
responsible for maintaining the relationship and were confident that the problems of the
past had now been resolved.
9
DOCUMENTATION
9.1
Amendments were required to the pathway specification form to bring it up to date with the
technical information and to list the correct modules in all sections. In addition it was noted
that the statement in section 17, Entry Requirements did not reflect the requirements for
this pathway in relation to the statement on APL and the team was required to remove it.
(Condition 2.3.2)
9.2
The Panel was satisfied with the Student Handbook but provided additional suggestions to
the Team on how it could be enhanced, These included:
 How to access e-vision
 Links to the Academic Regulations and University Student Handbook
 Formative assessment (see paragraph 5.3)
 The digital library
 How the student voice will be heard
10
MISCELLANEOUS
9.1
The Panel thanked the Team for their hospitality and full engagement with the re-approval
process. The Panel particularly wished to commend the Team for the impressive support
provided and sensitive relationship they had with their students; the high quality of the
environment and the learning resources; the high level of academic qualifications that were
impressive and clearly supported the learning and teaching.
11
CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS OF AWARDS
11.1
The Panel confirmed that the proposed Graduate Certificate in Specialist Palliative Care
pathway satisfied the University’s Academic Regulations with regard to the definitions and
academic standards of Anglia Ruskin awards and, hence, the QAA’s Framework for Higher
Education Qualifications.
DRAFT
UNCONFIRMED
CONFIRMED
FILE REF
OFFICE FILE REF
Quality Assurance Division
7
29th January 2009
9 February 2009
12 February 2009
FHSC/HS/09 08/09
Confirmed
SECTION C – DETAILS OF PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND PROPOSAL TEAM
Panel Chair:
Shaun Le Boutillier
Director of Studies, Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences
Internal Panel Members:
Jacqui McCary
Learning & Teaching Advisor, Faculty of Science and
Technology
Jenny Gilbert (by correspondence)
Deputy Dean, Ashcroft International Business School
External Member:
Dr Erna Haraldsdottir
Head of Education
Stirlingshire
Department,
Strathcarron
Hospice,
Executive Officer:
Libby Martin, Faculty Quality Assurance Officer, Faculty of
Health & Social Care, Academic Office
Technical Officer:
(by correspondence)
Lucy Gray, Academic Regulations Officer. Academic Office
St Helena Hospice
Participants:
Bridget Moss
Director of Education, St Helena Hospice
Sheliagh Cheesman
Deputy Director of Education and Lecturer, St Helena Hospice
Kate Powis
Lecturer, St Helena Hospice
Anglia Ruskin
Participants:
Quality Assurance Division
Mark Vertue
Acting Head of Department and Programme Leader,
Department of Primary and Intermediate Care, Faculty of
Health & Social Care
8
Confirmed
SECTION D – OUTCOME DATA
Programme
Department
Faculty
Collaborative Partner
Amended Award Approved
Continuing Care
Primary & Intermediate Care
Faculty of Health and Social Care
St Helena Hospice
Title of Named Pathway
Graduate Certificate
Specialist Palliative Care
Validating body (if not Anglia Ruskin University)
Professional body accreditation
Proposal Team Leader
Month and Year of the first intake
Standard intake points
Maximum and minimum student numbers
Date of first Conferment of Award(s)
Any additional/specialised wording to appear on
transcript and/or award certificate
Date of next scheduled Periodic Review
Awards and Titles to be deleted (with month/year of last
regular conferment)
Attendance mode
and duration
Part-time
Bridget Moss
Minimum – 10; maximum - 45
TBC
NEW MODULES APPROVED
Not applicable
FOR FRANCHISE APPROVALS ONLY: LIST OF MODULE TUTORS AND MODULE CODES & TITLES
(FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGISTER OF TEACHING STAFF)
Name of Teaching Staff
Module Code & Title
Sheliagh Cheesman
DE330009S
DE330008S
Symptom Management in Palliative Care
Facing Death: Patients, Families and Professionals
Bridget Moss
DE330009S
DE330008S
Symptom Management in Palliative Care
Facing Death: Patients, Families and Professionals
Kate Powis
DE330009S
DE330008S
Symptom Management in Palliative Care
Facing Death: Patients, Families and Professionals
Quality Assurance Division
9
Confirmed